NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAPDeploy storage into public clouds

Name: NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAPDeploy storage into public clouds
Brand: NetApp
Rating: 4.4 (104 reviews)

Leader

Making your data infrastructure more seamless, more dynamic, and higher performing than ever before.

Est 1992|Valuation $41.7B|Raised $6.6B

LinkedIn 782K|Website|Web traffic 856K|FTEs 11,700|HQ San Jose, California, US

MarketsCloud Infrastructure Providers (IaaS/PaaS)Backup and Data Protection

NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAPDeploy storage into public clouds screenshot

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Where CVO differentiates: - Multicloud symmetry: CVO provides a consistent ONTAP layer across AWS, Azure, and GCP, which can be relevant for hybrid and multicloud governance and data mobility. Where managed competitors have advantages: - Managed operations: In AWS, FSx for ONTAP reduces customer responsibility for lifecycle management (no ONTAP VM lifecycle required by the customer). - Managed-service pricing clarity: Managed services often provide explicit component pricing and billing examples. Customer-driven competitor mentions: - Community discussions frequently compare CVO and FSx in AWS with cost and management tradeoffs. Competitor pricing transparency: - AWS provides detailed FSx for ONTAP pricing examples and component breakdowns. Google Cloud NetApp Volumes publishes per-capacity pricing by service level and region for its managed offering.

	NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP	Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP	Azure NetApp Files
Starting Price	Published list pricing by capacity and tier (Essentials/Professional tiers), plus cloud infrastructure costs	AWS bills for storage, optional IOPS, throughput, capacity pool, backups; the service pricing model differs from a separate license line item	Azure bills per hour based on provisioned capacity; pricing varies by region and tier
Best For	Enterprises wanting ONTAP control and multicloud portability; teams with ONTAP operational skills	AWS-first teams wanting managed ONTAP semantics without running the ONTAP VM appliance	Azure-first teams needing high-performance enterprise file shares with minimal management
Key Strength	ONTAP feature set and portability across hyperscalers; can align with on-prem ONTAP processes	Managed service with ONTAP features; AWS-native billing and integration; capacity pool tiering model	Managed service integrated with Azure; commonly used for scenarios requiring high-performance file shares
Key Weakness	More operational overhead; performance depends on underlying cloud block storage and configuration	AWS-only; service constraints and region/feature availability may apply	Azure-only; provisioned-capacity billing can be costly if overprovisioned

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Where CVO differentiates:

Multicloud symmetry: CVO provides a consistent ONTAP layer across AWS, Azure, and GCP, which can be relevant for hybrid and multicloud governance and data mobility.

Where managed competitors have advantages:

Managed operations: In AWS, FSx for ONTAP reduces customer responsibility for lifecycle management (no ONTAP VM lifecycle required by the customer).
Managed-service pricing clarity: Managed services often provide explicit component pricing and billing examples.

Customer-driven competitor mentions:

Community discussions frequently compare CVO and FSx in AWS with cost and management tradeoffs.

Competitor pricing transparency:

AWS provides detailed FSx for ONTAP pricing examples and component breakdowns. Google Cloud NetApp Volumes publishes per-capacity pricing by service level and region for its managed offering.

	NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP	Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP	Azure NetApp Files
Starting Price	Published list pricing by capacity and tier (Essentials/Professional tiers), plus cloud infrastructure costs	AWS bills for storage, optional IOPS, throughput, capacity pool, backups; the service pricing model differs from a separate license line item	Azure bills per hour based on provisioned capacity; pricing varies by region and tier
Best For	Enterprises wanting ONTAP control and multicloud portability; teams with ONTAP operational skills	AWS-first teams wanting managed ONTAP semantics without running the ONTAP VM appliance	Azure-first teams needing high-performance enterprise file shares with minimal management
Key Strength	ONTAP feature set and portability across hyperscalers; can align with on-prem ONTAP processes	Managed service with ONTAP features; AWS-native billing and integration; capacity pool tiering model	Managed service integrated with Azure; commonly used for scenarios requiring high-performance file shares
Key Weakness	More operational overhead; performance depends on underlying cloud block storage and configuration	AWS-only; service constraints and region/feature availability may apply	Azure-only; provisioned-capacity billing can be costly if overprovisioned